Some results and experiences

Although analyses are still ongoing, a varied
range of results is already available from the different surveys, including databases,
reports, a model, and 'lessons learned' in general.

MOZAMBIQUE

Goods that contributed most to the community values of landscape
units in Gorongosa National Park were water, land for agriculture and houses, construction
materials (these included poles, fiber, thatching grass and reeds), firewood, general
household and craft materials and various wild foods.

Villagers collected or used resources from areas of about 300 km2
for a village of 40 to 100 households.

Important lessons that emerged from the analysis as to the factors
governing local valuation of landscape functions included the following:

Village landscapes are valued for the bundles of ecosystem goods and
services that people derive from each location in the landscape.

In terms of predicting the value of a given location, the
preference-weighted sum of stocks of resources on a given site was a good predictor of the
values local people assigned to that location. Neither distance, nor local traditional
regulations or institutions played much of a role in determining the value of a location.

Strictly enforced regulations, such as were prevalent in some areas of
GNP and for some resources, did act to exclude users and hence greatly reduce the value
assigned to the given location.

The value assigned to a given site was completely determined by tangible
benefit stocks. Non-visible ecosystem services, for example, were not identified as
benefits and therefore did not contribute to the values assigned in this analysis.

Confrontation of the respective models with field data from Muaredzi and
Nhanchururu suggest a reasonable degree of belief in the models.

Spatial model of landscape value for one of the two
villages studied

Three-dimensional view of
the Mauredzi village area taken from the south-west. The z-axis is magnified 10 times to
highlight the spatial variation in predicted landscape value. The landscape colouring
represents the predicted B/C (i.e. value) of the landscape to local community members.
Highest value units in the landscape those in white and gold (the peak in the center of
the image). Thereafter areas in light to darker blue and then red to dark red reflect
decreasing landscape value. The major routes and tracks are marked in thin red lines with
the house holds of the village marked in light blue. The blue swath of Urema River is
evident in the bottom left corner and the Muredzi River crosses from right (east) to left
(west) just to the foreground side of the village area. The two light blue patches to the
east of the village area (along the main road to Muanza) are patches of dry forest that
are of very high value to the community.

The process of overlaying community and biodiversity evaluations
produced better results for Muaredzi than for Nhanchururu, because vegetation units of the
former corresponded much better with the units mapped by the CRUAT.

The overlay made an analysis of threat to valued landscape units
possible: e.g. the forest types were allocated the highest conservation value and were
also ranked by the CRUAT as being of high value during both the initial scoring exercises
and subsequent field evaluations. This is where the greatest conflict can be anticipated
between competing uses for conservation purposes and for multiple use by the Muaredzi
community, and thus should be a logical focus for any local conservation efforts.